Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

In which EASA country is an on condition Engine/Prop allowed?

Depends what you mean by “control over”.

I would argue that in flying instruction the customer does have control over the operator. The customer can choose the aeroplane, the instructor, and the time/date of flight.

EGLM & EGTN

But is a member of a flying club “the public” or “an adherent” and will often have a say in how the club/association? Is run. Therefore flight training within a club whether it is an ATO or DTO is a non commercial operation.

France

Malibuflyer wrote:

took me some time to figure out what you are referring to, but I think I got it. You are using an outdated version of 965/2012. It got changed (amongst others) by 2018/1975. The current version of 2.1d says:
" “commercial operation” means any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available for the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator;"

Arguably, flight instruction does not fall under this definition. A flight student is not “the public”, and there is no contract between an operator an a customer.

In any case, the wording is 965/2012 is temporary. With the new Basic Regulation, the definition of “commercial operation” changed to “an aircraft operation to transport passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or other valuable consideration;” According to the transitional provisions in the Basic Regulation, 965/2012 must be changed to use the same definition by 2023.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

The answer to

In which EASA country is an on condition Engine/Prop allowed?

is thus: in all EU countries (not sure about non EU EASA countries?).

Freelance IRI / CB-IR Instructor
LOWG | Worldwide

Airborne_Again wrote:

A flight student is not “the public”,

Which EASA/EU regulation says this?

Just to get me right: I’m not arguing that instruction is commercial. I’m arguing that EASA completely messed this part of regulation up and therefore it is understandable/required that national CAAs fill the gaps to their best knowledge. And it is quite obvious that you could come to different conclusions wether the offerings of a flight school targets “the public” or not and if flying clubs have to be considered different to Schools or not.
It’s not about gold plating but about fixing the mess that EASA has left over.

Germany

@Malibuflyer don’t you think that that’s what the NAA’s wanted when they agreed the wording within EASA?

France

gallois wrote:

@Malibuflyer don’t you think that that’s what the NAA’s wanted when they agreed the wording within EASA?

No – simply because NAAs do not agree wording with EASA. The negotiation process is between the ministries of transport (or equivalent) and the commission – not between the NAAs and EASA.

But yes: It’s quite clear that member states have different interests and also different definitions of “commercial” in their tax laws…

Germany

don’t you think that that’s what the NAA’s wanted when they agreed the wording within EASA?

Most of them, for sure. NAAs like to support the industry which pays them annual fees for organisational approvals.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

But negotiations aren’t with EASA but within EASA and in the case of France that involves the DGAC having its say. Ot doesn’t get to the department for transport until later when the wording has to be signed off under EU terms

France

Is there any European country which enforces TBO (or TBO+20% / 12 years / etc) for privately operated planes?

What about night flight, or IFR?

We have had various threads on this over the years and it appears to be illegal now for a CAA to require this.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top